Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dixon (YouTuber)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Based on the discussion, it seems like there aren't enough dedicated sources to satisfy GNG. Numbers of viewers aren't substitutes, alas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dixon (YouTuber)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE shows not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Waggie (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this hinges around the Jersey Evening Post article as the basis for verifying notability. The Jersey Evening Post is the "national" newspaper for Jersey and is a reliable, independent secondary source, and its article provided significant coverage. Note that the web content linked to in that reference is only a precis of the much more extensive coverage that appeared in the print version of the newspaper - from memory it was a full tabloid page, so we must consider the offline source, not the quality of the coverage accessible by the web link. The subject also qualifies under WP:ENT on the basis of a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (3,143,376 YouTube subscribers). The problem with this Wikipedia article is that it is a honeypot for young fans who want to add non-encyclopedic content / trivia, and in the last couple of weeks someone close to the subject has become an editor and added original research. The article needs stripping back, and realistically would need some level of page protection to prevent further additions of unsuitable content. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same argument as on Sidemen.. One reliable source does not pass WP:GNG. A minimum of 3-5 reliable sources, with independent and comprehensive coverage is required to pass WP:GNG. A large fan base cannot be determined by followers, as followers can be purchased. YouTube is not a reliable source. Waggie (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Where does the "minimum 3-5" come from? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You quote precisely the section I refer to. It says "multiple sources". "Multiple" means "having or involving several parts, elements, or members", and "several" means "more than two but not many." (emphasis added). Hence the range 3-5 that I describe. Also you called the Jersey Evening Post a "local" paper, which it definitely is, even if it reports or syndicates national news. WP:AUD states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I'll admit that WP:AUD is part of WP:ORG. This would seem to be born out in specific to Youtubers by past AfD discussions, such as this AfD, this AfD, and this AfD as some quickly found examples. Waggie (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:BLP policy, WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE subject specific guidelines. Any article containing material about a living person must comply with the policy of biographies of living individuals. This includes any subject specific criteria contained in Wikipedia:Notability (people) which includes WP:ENT.

This article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources(plural) with significant coverage to establish notability. Current sources are -

6 YouTube references. Not independent and not considered a reliable source.
2 social media sites (Twitter, socialblade.com) not reliable or independent.
onefootball.com - a football blog site.
mirror.co.uk -m - One sentence trivial mention
www.dailyecho.co.uk, and www.justgiving.com - subject not even mentioned.
Jersey Evening Post - does contain significant coverage however it is a local paper serving an area with a population of around 100K. Paper/website has an editorial disclaimer that states "it does not give any warranty or representations, express or implied, about its accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness for a particular purpose."

The number of YouTube subscribers may indicate popularity however, that does not translate to notability without verifiable, reliable sources to back that up. CBS527^Talk 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that YouTube videos aren't a reliable source, but those are cited to verify specific content in the article, not to establish notability. The number of subscribers is verifiable [1] from the definitive source. There's no way to categorically prove or disprove the "they might have gamed YouTube to artificially create subscribers" argument because we can't tell whether all those three million are real people. But what we can do is combine the evidence in front of us (as explained in WP:BASIC - the newspaper article plus the number of subscribers plus featuring twice in all-star football matches adds up to this subject being genuine rather than some sort of elaborate sham. (As to the Jersey Evening Post's disclaimer - surely that's a standard blanket precaution that most publications would take. It doesn't mean they're in the business of publishing fake news.) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I get that YouTube videos aren't a reliable source, but those are cited to verify specific content in the article, not to establish notability." Youtube isn't a reliable source. That means it's not a reliable source for verifying content, per WP:RS. That includes "specific content", notability, # of subscribers, etc. Waggie (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely valid for the article to use the videos that the subject has created as a source for verifying the (reasonable) claims that the article makes about him. The guidance on video links states that "editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video" i.e. that we are to apply good judgment - it doesn't say that video links are not to be relied on at all. "Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources" (WP:ABOUTSELF)

Back to what you say about needing 3-5 sources (which is contradicted by WP:N saying "there is no fixed number of sources required"), multiple sources can mean two - see Wikipedia:Verifiability and notability#Notability.

I see that the article List of most subscribed users on YouTube is dependent on YouTube's subscriber counts - pinging @Clbsfn and Jamesjpk: from WikiProject YouTube to get their view.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curb Safe Charmer, thanks for your reply. A notable individual's verified social media accounts are considered reliable for statements they make specifically about themselves, not about the things they do or have done, and it must be cited as such for context, please see WP:BLPSELFPUB and the two sections above that as well. Regarding 3-5 sources, I have stated my rationale already. Even the section you cite states "...but like most bare minimums, rarely enough." even if I disagree with it considering "two" as "multiple", considering the definitions of the relevant words. It's a moot point, however, because there is only one source with comprehensive coverage that is independent, and it's only a local paper. As for the list you refer to, it is extremely problematic and needs pruning down to what reliable sources report, plus other stuff exists is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. You should be aware also, that pinging a very specific set of users in a deletion discussion is canvassing and isn't allowed. Waggie (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ regularly getting over a million viewers for Youtube videos is sufficient evidence of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Power~enwiki, could you specify the notability criteria that establishes that? I'm not aware of any. Waggie (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is none (officially), it's my own personal opinion from reviewing a variety of these proposals over the last month. See my user/talk page for more info. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Power~enwiki, thanks for your reply! It's long established consensus (and established in guidelines) that establishing notability requires reliable sources. Even with the specific notability criteria, they still require reliable sources to verify the content. As Youtube (and other social media platforms) are established as NOT being reliable sources, we simply can't accept supposed viewership/subscribership on social media platforms where such numbers can easily be inflated as a reliable means of determining notability. Reliable sources must be used to support content in articles. Can you understand why we would need that as an encyclopedia? Wikipedia has enough credibility issues already. Waggie (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage such as [2] leads me to believe the case for notability exists, even if it isn't in the article as written. The main reason I see to delete this article is that it's currently entirely self-promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, thanks again for your reply! As notability isn't inherited, the article you link to doesn't really help for establishing Chris Dixon's notability, as it doesn't even mention him at all, much less discuss him comprehensively. Perhaps he will be notable eventually, but certainly not now. I agree that even outside of the notability issue, the article is highly promotional. The thing about notability and sources is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what reliable sources say on a subject. If there aren't reliable sources discussing a subject, then there literally is nothing to summarize for Wikipedia article. Any article on Chris Dixon would have to be synthesized from a smattering of other sources, which wouldn't be encyclopedic either. Does that make sense? Waggie (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of your entire argument, but I'm convinced the article needs improvements before it can survive this process. I've struck my previous vote and remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you for discussing it with me, Power~enwiki. Waggie (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's sometimes hard to classify those type of articles. In the end, however, I think even with the cited coverage he is a WP:ONEEVENT phenomena. Perhaps merge to some list of youtube channels or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.